Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-05 adjMarch 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986)' .... ~ Page An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 5, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting ROom 5, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from February 19, 1986. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 4:04 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 4:05 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W..Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 4:06 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. ZTA-86-01. Proposed amendments to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to correct errors and deficiencies in the existing regulations for mobile homes, etc. (Defer.red from February 19, 1986.) Mr. Horne said these amendments are proposed mainly because the existing regulations in the Zoning Ordinance are either outdated or too general to be useful to the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or any developer. It is difficult for the staff to provide the developer with adequate information when an application is filed. The proposed changes are scattered throughout various ordinance sections. A major change deals with application procedures and requirements for mobile home parks. Other changes deal with temporary mobile homes, mobile home subdivisions and small scale "housekeeping" items suggested by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Horne then summarized the following significant policy decisions made by the Planning Commission during its' work sessions. 1. Mobile home parks should not be distinguished from conventional developments in determining the maximum permitted density. At present, density provisions are determined at the time of application and outside of the Comprehensive Plan, there are no guidelines. The Commission recommended that mobile home parks by special use permit be deleted from the RA and VR districts because parks at such low densities would not be viable. Staff originally proposed that Parks be permitted in the RA and VR districts, as well as the higher density districts, provided the park conformed to the density requirements of the district in which it was located. In the higher density residential districts ("R" zones), the basic decision is that parks would be allowed at the same density as the underlying density provided for other uses in the zone and would require a special use permit. 2. "Fringe" areas adjacent or near to the growth areas are not to be considered dis- tinct areas in the review of rezoning or special use permit requests. References to "fringe" areas shall be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan. The staff felt that mobile home park applications would most likely be for areas just outside the urban area to gain access to utilities, but would not have the land costs associated within the urban area. The Commis- sion felt that the words "fringe areas", unless defined, are a liability. Proposals for urban development, outside of the urban area, should be reviewed as such and if appropriate, the decision can be made to amend the urban area boundary. This decision confirms the importance of the growth area/rural area boundaries. Mobile home parks or other types of developments proposed outside the growth area will require a comprehensive plan amendment to extend the growth area boundary and jurisdictional area for public water and sewer. 3. The County Engineer has developed standards to provide economical', attractive and easy to maintain roads for mobile home parks. A primed and double-sealed, paved surface at a rural cross section is required. Such a roadway is sufficient to serve a high density residential development. The County Engineer is in the process of preparing a design manual, to include mobile home park road standards, which will contain engineering standards not included in the county ordinances. Until the design manual is adopted by the Board, staff suggests that these road standards be included with the "Supplementary Regulations for mobile home parks" Mr. Horne said there are various other changes set out in the staff report that was presented to the Board on February 19. He then mentioned that the low and moderate cost housing bonus has been expanded to address the application of bonus factors in mobile home parks and subdivisions with the assumption that all mobile homes can be considered low or moderate cost housing, based on typical sale prices. Presently in Albemarle County, even the higher priced mobile homes still fall within the low and moderate cost housing range. Mr. Bowie said the ordinance specifically addresses the applicable Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations which indicates to him that mobile home parks or subdivisions are not de facto low or moderate income units. Mr. Fisher said low and moderate income is based on the individual and not the unit. Mr. Fisher said he thought that mobile homes would qualify as low and moderate income units if the occupants qualify. Mr. Bowie said he is also not clear about density bonus points. Density bonus points are not allowed just because of the mobile home, the occupants must qualify. Mr~ Horne said that is not correct. Mr. St. John said he does not believe that can be done under Virginia law. Once housing is built or rented at certain costs, he does not believe that it can be dictated who lives there and the bonuses predicated on class or occupancy. Mr. FiSher asked if low and moderate requirements are satisfied by location of the mobile home or if the occupant's income has to be below certain federal standards. Mr. Horne said the intent is to qualify mobile homes for the Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program. Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, said there are standards under Section 8 for rental units, March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Page 2) 335 and thus it is easy to qualify mobile homes~for rent. The Commission did not want the person leasing the mobile home to charge an exorbitant rent and ~stillqualify as low income housing. There are three applicable instances. The first instance is when the~unit is situated and available for rent. The second instance is when the lot is. for .rent and the person provides the unit. The third instance is when the.mobile home lot is for ~sale. Mr. Fisher commented that if a mobile home park is set up and all of the people that qualify under this program leave, the bonus densities remain in effect. Ms. Scala commented that Section 8 is primarily based on the rent. Mr. Fisher said once an established mobile home park qualifies for Section 8, does the staff require removal of people in units that do not qualify fOr the program. Mr. Horne said no, that is not enforceable. Mr. Henley commented that he doesn't think it will be a problem. Mr. Ray Beard, owner of Cedar Hill Mobile Home Estates, asked if the extra density is based on the income per person, or cost per unit, when the bonus program is applied to an apartment complex. He interprets the language to mean the price of the unit. Mr. Horne said there are long-term provisions to enforce the policy that mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five years. The staff can also enforce the provision that mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five years. Mr. Horne said the 45 foot lot width is a minimum. If a developer allows double-wide mobile homes, he can certainly change the lot width and still reach his minimum lot size by shortening and widening the lot. He presented a drawing (on file) of typical lot layouts, minimum size lots and an illustration of maximum lot coverage. The maximum size of a single- wide mobile home is 14 feet wide by 76 feet long. There is not ample space to install double-wide mobile homes side by side on a minimum width lot. There are provisions in the ordinance where the minimum lot width can be increased and still have the minimum lot size. In addition the maximum lot coverage would also work on a minimum width and minimum size lot. If all requests are at the minimum, it would be a mistake because the developer would be locking himself into use of single-wide mobile homes only. Mr. Henley said he thinks these provisions gives the developer an option to basically do as he wants. There may be some smaller mobile home parks that will want to concentrate on single-wide mobile homes. Mr. Horne said the application plan for mobile home parks is now similar to a preliminary plat. Mr. Bowie said from the language he gathers that if the lot size is not 85 feet or greater, a curb is required. Mr. Horne said the County Engineer used the assumption that if the width of the lots is narrower and the units closer together, it will be hard controlling drainage with ditches. It is easier if there is a roll curb or drainage structure for each lot. Mr. Horne said the real concern was trying to strike a balance between an adequate roadway for a high density residential development versus putting too much into the cost so no one would be able to apply and build one cost effectively. The original proposal by the County Engineer was for gravel roadways, but the Commission felt that if mobile home parks are going to be treated similarly to high-density residential developments, the parks should have at least a minimum prime and double seal surface. Mr. Fisher said there is a need for public water and sewer facilities if mobile home parks are to be in these densities. Mr. Horne said the basic assumption is that the parks will be in areas where utilities are available. Mr. Fisher asked if the parks will go in R-15 zones. Mr. Horne said technically, they could but it would be difficult. Ms. Scala said the low and moderate cost housing was tied to Section 8 because it should be similar to other apartment rental units whereby the initial sale price for sale units, or the rental rate for rental units, for a period of five years, shall qualify as low or moderate cost housing under either the Virginia Housing Development Authority, Farmers Home Administra- tion or Housing and Urban Development Section 8. The cost is tied to the unit rather than the income of the person. If the mobile homes units are rented, the developer must enter into an agreement with the County restricting the rental rates for a period of five years. Mr. Horne said the Section 8 program is a combination of income and rent. The maximum allowable rent is generated to a certain extent by the income of the person applying to rent the unit. The Section 8 standards not only deal with the unit itself and its characteris- tics, but the characteristics of the person applying under Section 8. Mr. Way said he does not agree with the assumption that under no circumstances should a mobile home park be allowed in a rural setting. Perhaps the criteria for a rural setting should be different from an urban setting. Mr. Horne said the original staff recommendation was to leave mobile home parks in the rural areas district, but the Commission felt that the parks would not work in the rural areas unless as a special permit use, and that would allow a greater density than normally allowed in rural areas. If the use was treated as an excep- tion, public sewer would be required and the Commission could not resolve the conflict. Mr. Henley said he thinks sewer is needed in most cases, but he is not sure Beaver Hill (a mobile home park in Crozet) is hooked to public water. There are a number of acres on that property that would allow expansion and installation of a septic field. He believes that mobile home parks would work in rural areas if certain conditions were set, possibly also a requirement for public water. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the Planning Commission's concern about maintaining the integrity of the urban boundary. Granting special exceptions questions the whole scheme and premise of rural areas zoning which is designed for development without public utilities and at very low densities. Once any utility is made available, a problem is created. It is possible to create a subdivision and then request a special permit for each lot for a mobile home, assuming the subdivision is in compliance. He thinks it is difficult to waive the requirements for mobile home parks. Mr. Lindstrom said mobile homes provide a housing for certain elderly people and other low-income persons. Mr. Henley commented that many people cannot get financing for a conventional home, but can get it to purchase a mobile homes. Mr. Henley said he is willing to give these amendments a try, but does not expect any big results. 336 March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Paqe 3) Mr. Lindstrom said he is willing to support the proposal, but he has one concern. Although he does not expect it to happen, someone may come in with a 300 lot mobile home park. He thinks that the Board has been concerned for a long time about locating many low income housing units in one spot because it creates~problems. He would like to know more about what size a park must be to be economically feasible. The Board has an obligation and responsibility to look at these special permits in terms of traffic, surrounding neighbor- hood, etc., but also in terms of size. Mrs. Cooke said she has the same basic concern as Mr. Lindstrom. There have been some unpleasant situations associated with mobile home parks in the County. If the parks are not large enough for economical development, the ordinance will sit and nobody will take advantage of it. If the parks are small enough to be manageable and acceptable, she is concerned about whether anything will be accomplished. She sees no point in having this ordinance if nobody can or will take advantage of it because it is not economically feasible. On the other hand, if there is a proposal for a huge park development, that effects the surrounding neighborhood. She is not willing to see these problems evolve in the county. Mr. Lindstrom said not including a limit on the size of the park in the ordinance will allow the Board to exercise its discretion. Mrs. Cooke said she understands that the people developing these parks find it difficult to do so with just a small number of lots. To create an ordinance for parks that aren't going to be developed is of no service. Mr. Fisher asked if there has been any inquiries from possible applicants. Ms. Scala said she has received several telephone calls. Some of the calls inquired about putting a park in the rural areas and one from a developers interested in locating a park in the urban area. Mr. Fisher commented that the absence of any public comments in this process has been unusual. Mr. Bowie asked if there were comments received from the mobile home industry, sellers, builders, owners, etc., during development of the mobile home park study in 1984. Ms. Scala said she talked with some of the larger developers and park owners and there were several park owners at the Planning Commission meeting. A lot of the people at the Planning Commission meetings were mobile home renters. She thinks that the owners would be in favor of the ordinance if it would allow development of more parks. She received the impression that the owners were a little cynical; feeling the ordinance would be passed and parks would still not be approved. Her response has been that the owners have a better chance of receiv- ing approval for applications in the urban area where utilities are available. She also feels that if mobile home parks are approved for the urban area, those parks would be done by developers who have no present use for their property, but who do not want to leave it idle until something better is possible. Mr. Bowie asked if the developers were asked if these restrictions allowed the development of parks which are economically viable. Ms. Scala said she sent copies of these amendments to several lot owners and the response was concern for stricter standards so that the parks will look nicer, and not be rundown. If the standards are stricter and the parks maintained properly, people would realize that not all mobile homes are unattractive. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with that, but each time a restriction is added, it costs more money and the parks get out of the low and moderate income field which is what she assumed was being addressed. If a park is developed with all of the aesthetics necessary to make it acceptable to protect the integrity of the County, she feels a house can be built on a lot for the same amount. She is not prepared to vote on the amendment until such time as there is a solution to this difficult situation. Ms. Scala said the staff tried very hard to strike a balance between amenities and keeping the cost down. Mr. Fisher said there have been only two mobile home requests under the current present ordinance requirements. He thinks that something different must be tried. Mr. Tucker commented that the reason those two applications were denied was because of lack of public utilities. The ordinance is actually in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mobile home parks have been permitted only in the rural areas, but the type of density necessary for a park to be viable requires public water and sewer. Expansion and extension of these utilities outside of the growth area is not recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He also agrees with Mrs. Cooke's concern. This could be done on a trial period to see if any applications are received. He does not think the staff could ever support a mobile home park in the rural areas the way the current ordinance is written now because of the conflict regarding utilities. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board should approve these amendments. This will generate the same kind of return a developer can get on conventional homes unless there are utilities. The minute utilities are available, the value of the land will increase and people will do something else to the land that will generate more revenues. It is a problem, but it is inherent in economics. Mrs. Cooke said she can foresee someone developing a mobile home park on propertY that they are waiting to do something else with in the future. The Board cannot control what the private sector does although when something is made easy for them, they will take advantage of it. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt ZTA-86-01 through the ordinance set out below. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he is no more optimistic about this than Mrs. Cooke, but it allows the mobile home parks and the utilities in the same area. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion, but he would like to have been assured that the segment of industry these regulations apply to had some input. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Page 4) (The Ordinance as adopted is set out below:) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted through the following changes: SECTION 3.0 - Definitions Amend the definition of Mobile Home to read as follows: An industrialized building unit constructed on a chassis for towing to the point of use, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as a dwelling; or two (2) or more such units separately towable, but designed to be joined together at the point of use to form a single dwelling, and which is designed for removal to and installation or erection on other sites. This definition shall not include an industrialized building unit which is labelled as meeting the Building Officials and Code Administrators Code (BOCA) for one- and two-family dwelling units. Amend the definition of Mobile Home Park to read as follows: One (1) or more contiguous parcels of land in which three (3) or more rental lots are provided for mobile homes. SECTION 4.0 - GENERAL REGULATIONS 4.8.2 - Temporary Mobile Homes - Amend language to read: Temporary mobile homes shall be permitted only in accordance with the provisions of section 5.7 and section 5.8 of this ordinance. SECTION 5.0 - SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 5.3 - Mobile Home Parks - Delete all existing language and in its place put the following language: A mobile home park may be established by the commission and board of supervisors by special use permit obtained pursuant to section 31.0 of this ordinance. It is intended that a mobile home park be located and designed so as to provide and maintain a desirable residential environment for the residents of the park and the residents of adjacent properties. Mobile home parks shall be located in designated growth areas of the comprehensive plan. 5.3.1 - Minimum Size Mobile Home Parks A mobile home park shall consist of five (5) or more contiguous acres. 5.3.2 - Maximum Density A mobile home park shall conform to the maximum gross density require- ments of the district in which it is located. 5.3.3 - Minimum Lot Sizes Each mobile home lot shall comply with the following area and width requirements: 5.3.3.1 Mobile home lots shall consist of four thousand five hundred (4,500) square feet or more, and shall have a width of forty-five (45) feet or more. 5.3.3.2 Mobile home lots served by either a central water or central sewerage system shall consist of forty thousand (40,000) square feet or more, and shall have a width of one hundred (100) feet or more. 5.3.3.3 Mobile home lots served by neither a central water supply nor a central sewerage system shall consist of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet or more and shall have a width of one hundred thirty (130) feet or more. 5.3.4 - Location of Mobile Homes 5.3.4.1 Each mobile home shall be located on a mobile home lot. The lot shall also provide space for outdoor living and storage areas and may provide space for a parking area. 5.3.4.2 Each mobile home lot shall front on an internal street. 5.3.4.3 No mobile home shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet from any service or recreational structure intended to be used by more than one (1) mobile home. 338 March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) ~ ,, __ _ (Paqe 5) 5.3.4.4 The minimum distance between mobile homes shall be thirty (30) feet. The Albemarle County fire official may require additional space between mobile homes if public water is not available or is inadequate for fire protection. 5.3.5 - Setbacks and Yards 5.3.5.1 Mobile homes and other structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way of an existing public street. 5.3.5.2 Mobile homes and other structures shall be set back at least fifty (50) feet from the mobile home park property line when it is adjacent to a residential or rural areas district. 5.3.5.3 Mobile homes and other structures shall be set back at least fifteen (15) feet from the right-of-way of internal private streets, common walkways and common recreational or service areas. This dis- tance may be increased to twenty-five (25) feet for mobile homes or structures at roadway intersections and along internal public streets. 5.3.5.4 Mobile homes and other structures shall be set back at least six (6) feet from any mobile home space lot line. 5.3.6 - Application Plan Required An application plan shall be submitted as part of the application for a mobile home park. The plan shall be reviewed by the site plan review committee, but shall be considered preliminary. Following approval of the special use permit, and prior to the issuance of a building permit or any clearing of the site, a final site development plan shall be approved. The final site development plan shall contain all the information required on the application plan in addition to all the information required in section 32.0 site development plan. 5.3.6.1 The application plan shall contain the following information at a scale of one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet or larger: Location of tract or parcel by a vicinity map, and landmarks sufficient to identify the location of the property; b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract; Existing roads, easements and utilities; watercourses and their names; owners, zoning and present use of adjoining tracts, and lOcation of residential structures on adjoining tracts; d. Location, type and size of ingress and egress to the site; ee Existing and proposed topography accurately shown with a maximum contour interval of five (5) feet; areas shown with slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater; f. Flood plain limits; Proposed general road alignments and rights-of-way; general water, sewer and storm drainage lay-out; general landscape plan; common area with recreational facilities and walkways; service areas; common trash container locations~ parking areas; a typical lot detail showing the mobile home stand, outdoor living and storage areas, parking area, setbacks and utility connections; and any other information necessary to show that these requirements can be met. 5.3.7 - Improvements Required - Mobile Home Lots 5.3.7.1 - Utilities Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual connection to an approved sanitary sewage disposal system. Each mobile home lot shall be provided with an individual connection to an approved central water supply or other potable water supply. Each mobile home lot shall be provided with electrical service installed in accordance with the National Electrical Code. 5.3.7.2 - Markers for Mobile Home Lots Each mobile home lot shall be clearly defined on the ground by permanent markers. There shall be posted and maintained in a conspicuous place on each lot a number corresponding to the number of each lot as shown on the site plan. 5.3.7.3 - Outdoor Living and Storage Areas An outdoor living area shall be provided on each mobile home lot. least one hundred (100) square feet shall be hard surfaced. At March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Page 6) Storage buildings not to exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet in aggregate shall be permitted in a designated area on each lot. Additional storage facilities may be provided in common areas. 5.3.7.4 - Additions to Mobile Homes Additions to mobile homes are permitted, subject to the following conditions: a. Albemarle County building official approval; b. Applicable setbacks are met; Total roof area lot coverage shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the mobile home lot. 5.3.7.5 - Installation of Mobile Homes Installation of mobile homes shall comply with the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Skirting shall be provided around the mobile home from ground level to the base of the mobile home within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5.3.8 - Improvements Required - Mobile Home Park. 5.3.8.1 - Off-Street Parking Off-street parking for mobile homes, recreational uses and service areas shall be provided in accordance with section 4.12 of this ordi- nance. Parking for mobile homes may be provided on individual lots, or in convenient bays, in accordance with section 4.12.3.3. Additional parking area for recreational vehicles shall be provided in a common area at a rate of one (1) space per ten (10) units. 5.3.8.2 - Internal Streets A minimum right-of-way width of forty (40) feet shall be established on internal private streets for the purpose of measuring setbacks. The right-of-way shall be maintained clear of all obstructions. Internal private streets shall be constructed to the following minimum standards: MOBILE HOME PARK STREET STANDARDS Minimum typical section for access, entrance, or other connecting streets that do not abut mobile home sites and for streets that do abut mobile home sites where the lot frontage (measured at the mobile home setback line) is an average of 85 feet or greater. Street width = 20' (see note a) Min. 2 (min.)t ~ ' *See note h. ~' Base Minimum typical section for all Park streets that abut mobile home sites where the lot frontage (measured at the mobile home setback line) is an average of less than 85 feet. ,2.5' Street width = 20' (see note a) 10' 10' 2.5~ No 2. type,,¢ b. . ent See YDH&T Subdivision ~ Street Requirements". Base 34O March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Pa~e 7) General Design Notes: Increase street width to 24 feet for streets that serve over 50 mobile home sites. Pavement shall be prime and double seal bituminous surface treatment. Base shall be six inches of 21 or 2lA aggregate base. c. Maximum longitudinal street grade is 10 percent. d. Minimum vertical stopping sight distance is 100 feet. e. Minimum horizontal centerline curve radius is 250 feet. Cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum radius of 45 feet measured to the edge of pavement. ge Minimum radius of edge of pavement at intersections is 25 feet. Roadside ditches shall be designed to contain the ten-year storm below the shoulder using Mannings "n" of 0.06 if lined with grass, or 0.015 if lined with concrete. Ditches may bt grassed if the flow from the two-year storm does not exceed1 three feet per second for a Mannings "n" of 0.03. If the three foot per second velocity is exceeded, the ditches shall be paved with class A-3 concrete, four inches thick, to the depth of the ten-year storm. When the depth of the required roadside ditch (measured from the shoulder to the invert) exceeds 2.5 feet, the flow shall be piped in a storm sewer system. Driveway entrance culverts and culverts crossing streets shall be designed to contain the ten-year storm below the road shoulder using the appropriate Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) nomographs. When paved ditches are smoothly transitioned into the culverts, the culverts may be sized using Mannings formula. All culverts shall be concrete. Erosion control protection (VDH&T standard EC-1) shall be placed at culverts when the outlet velocity exceeds five feet per second. Driveway culverts shall be a minimum of 12 feet .long. Driveways shall be paved the same as streets to the right- of-way line. Aggregate base may be four inches thick. Curb drop inlets shall be placed along the tangent portions of the street or at the points of curve at intersections. Curb drop inlets shall be sized and located to prevent overtopping of the curb during the ten-year storm. Curb drop inlets shall be VDH&T DI-3A, 3B, or 3C with a type "A" nose. Storm sewers shall be designed in accordance with VDH&T criteria. mm Ail construction and materials shall be in accordance with current VDH&T road and bridge standards and specifications. 5.3.8.3 Recreational Requirements See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. 5.3.8.4 Pedestrian Access The requirements of section 32.5.19 shall be met. 5.3.8.5 Service Areas and Accessory Uses Centrally located service buildings may provide common laundry facili- ties, office space for management and accessory uses as are customarily incidental to the operation and maintenance of a mobile home park. Consolidation of the service building and indoor recreational facili- ties is permitted. Other uses may be established in accordance with the regulations of the zoning district in which the park is located. 5.3.8.6 Lighting Ail proposed exterior lighting shall be shown. Lighting shall be directed away from mobile homes, adjaCent properties and roadways such that it does not create a nuisance or safety hazard and shall be shielded when necessary. 5.3.8.7 Landscaping and Screeninq The requirements of section 32.8 shall be met. In addition, screening may be required in accordance with section 32.8.6.1 around the entire perimeter of the park, or part thereof, except where adequate vegeta- tion already exists and a conservation plan has been submitted in accordance with section 32.8.2.3. March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Paqe 8) ~ 341 5.4 - Temporary Mobile Home Parks - Delete in its entirety and add a new section reading: 5.5.6 Application Plan Required A preliminary subdivision plat shall be submitted as part of the application for a mobile home subdivision, and shall be reviewed by the site plan review committee. Following approval of the special use permit, and prior to the issuance of a building permit or any clearing of the site, a final plat shall be approved. 5.6.2 - Conditions of Approval 5.6.2.c - Amend language to read: Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 5.6.2.d - Amend language to read: Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Depart- ment of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5.6.2.e - Amend language to read: Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the reasonable satis- faction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die. Add new section: 5.8 Temporary Nonresidential Mobile Homes reading: A temporary nonresidential mobile home may be authorized by the zoning administrator provided the mobile home is used to house a planned permanent use and the applicant has received site plan approval for such permanent use on the same site. The mobile home shall be removed within thirty (30) days of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent structure. Temporary nonresidential mobile home permits shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Site plan approval if applicable; b. Albemarle County building official approval; Ce The applicant and/or owner of the property shall certify as to the intent for locating the mobile home at the time of application; Skirting to be provided from ground level to base of mobile home within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Add new section: 5.8.1 Expiration, Renewal Any permit issued pursuant to section 5.8 shall expire eighteen (18) months after the date of issuance unless construction of the permanent structure shall have commenced and is thereafter prosecuted in good faith. The zoning administrator may revoke any such permit after ten (10) days written notice, at any time upon a finding that construction activities have been suspended for an unreasonable time or in bad faith. In any event, any such permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of issuance; provided, however that the zoning administrator may, for good cause shown, extend the time of such expiration for not more than two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each. SECTION 6.0 - NONCONFORMITIES 6.4.1 - Expansion or Enlargement - Add a second paragraph to read: Except that, nothing in this section shall prohibit the replacement of a nonconforming mobile home with a larger mobile home, provided the mobile home is labelled to indicate compliance with either the Virginia Industrialized Building and Mobile Home Safety Regulations or with the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards adopted by HUD, 1974, as amended; and, further provided that the conditions of section 5.6.2 are met if applicable. SECTION 10.0 - Rural Areas District - RA 10.2.2.8 - Delete in its entirety. SECTION 12.0 - Village Residential - VR 12.2.2.8 - Delete in its entirety. 3'"42 March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Page 9_1 12.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housinq - Add the following subsections: Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; Mobile home lots for sale in an approved~mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 13.0 - RESIDENTIAL, R-1 13.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Add the following subsections: Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; go Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 14.0 - RESIDENTIAL, R-2 14.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Add the following subsections: Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 15.0 - RESIDENTIAL, R-4 Add a new section 15.2.2.14 to read: Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.3). 15.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housinq - Add the following subsections: ee Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 16.0 - RESIDENTIAL, R-6 Add a new section 16.2.2.14 to read: 5.3). Mobile Home Parks (reference March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) {Page 10) 343 16.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Add the following subsections: ee Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; f® Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; ge Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 17.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-10 Add a new section 17.2.2.17 to read: 5.3). Mobile Home Parks (reference 17.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Add the following subsections: Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; fe Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile~home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 18.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-15 Add a new section 18.2.2.17 to read: 5.3). Mobile Home Parks (reference 18.4.3 - Low and Moderate Cost Housing - Add the following subsections: ee Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall be considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Development Section 8 program; Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall restrict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. SECTION 22.0 - COMMERCIALr C-1 22.2.1 - By Right Add a new section 22.2.1.b.23 to read: Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). SECTION 23.0 - COMMERCIAL OFFICE CO 23.2.1 - By Right Add a new section 23.2.1.11 to read: Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). SECTION 24.0 - HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL HC 24.2.1 - By Right Add a new section 24.2.1.40 to read: Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). 344 March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Page 11) SECTION 27.0 - LIGHT INDUSTRY LI 27.2.1 - By Right Add a new section 27.2.1.16 to read: Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). SECTION 28.0 - HEAVY INDUSTRY HI 28.2.1 - By Right Add a new section 28.2.1.23 to read: Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: ZTA-86-02. Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordi- nance to replace current recreation requirements found in the higher density, etc. (Deferred from February 19, 1986.) Mr. Horne said Mr. Bowie requested at the February 19 Board meeting that the substitu- tion clause be strengthened. He reviewed the section several times and compared it to regulations in other localities and could not think of a way to strengthen the wording, but the clause could be moved to follow the example in Section 4.16.2.1. (Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way left the meeting at 5:09 P.M.) The clause would immediately follow the example. Mr. Bowie asked if these amendments were mailed out to builders for comments. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 5:11 P.M.) Mr. Horne responded yes and there were some comments which were incorporated in the amendments. Mr. Don Wagner was present and said he is concerned about the dramatic increase in the total area requirement. With regard to recreation within covered areas, there are no provi- sions for desirable buildings, such as clubhouses or swimming pools. This requirement is strictly based on square footage. A swimming pool of "x" square feet is different from a grassy area of the same number of square feet. The ordinance does not allow any extra credits for the swimming pool. Mr. Fisher asked how this should be dealt with in the ordinance. Mr. Wagner said there is a tremendous cost differential both at the beginning of a project and for maintenance through the years for a swimming pool or clubhouse. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission felt there was a need for open space recreation with the presence of a swimming pool or clubhouse. Mr. Horne said yes, the Commission felt there was an inherent need for some open play areas. While substitutions for equipment are appropriate, the basic area should still be there. A swimming pool is a facility or equipment substitu- tion. The Commission did not feel that equipment should be substituted for an area. The area generated by a typical development is not much. The Planning Commission heard the argument, but did not agree with it. Mr. Horne commented that two percent of the site is now required for recreation and 2.7 percent of the site is required for recreation under the new proposal. The 200 square feet is for the total square area for developed and undeveloped space. Mr. Wagner asked if a grassy courtyard could be used as passive recreation area. Ms. Scala said yes, but there are guidelines for the slope and so forth. (Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at 5:22 P.M.) Mr. Horne said the Commission has to consider the appropriateness of such an area for the intended use and there are some guidelines for active and passive recreation. Mr. Fisher asked if slopes in active recreation areas can be up to ten percent. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the space could include a runoff control basin. Mr. Horne said, in his opinion, that would not be an appropriate recreation area, but the Commission has to make the decision. (Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 9:26 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said he can see Mr. Wagner's point about extra credit for swimming pools, but he is not sure how that would be incorporated in the ordinance without creating a problem for the staff. The staff would have to determine how much it would be worth in terms of the area requirement. He is reluctant to inject something such as that in the ordinance. Many times swimming pools are installed to make a project more attractive to the prospective purchasers. He thinks that is a marketing judgement for the developer, not a public neces- sity. He does not think the recreation requirement is unreasonable. Mr. Way said he also does not think it is unreasonable. Mr. Lindstrom said the whole purpose of these amendments is to help the staff and let the developer know what is expected. Mr. Henley asked if these regulations are for R-4 and higher zones. Mr. Horne replied yes and they also apply to mobile home parks. Mr. Fisher said he does not think these amendments are unreasonable and he would like to see the Board adopt them with the change suggested by Mr. Horne. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve ZMA-86-02 by adopting the following ordinance with the amendment recommended by Mr. Horne to move the substitution paragraph directly following the list of equipment in 4.16.2.1. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below.) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted through the following changes: SECTION 4.0 - GENERAL REGULATIONS Add new section: 4.16 - Recreation Regulations reading: March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Paqe 12) 345 Developed recreational area~s) .shall be provided for every development of thirty (30) units or more equal to or exceeding four (4) dwelling units per acre, except for single-family and two-family dwellings developed on conventional lots. 4.16.1 - Minimum Area A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet per unit of recreational area shall be provided in common area or open space on the site, this requirement not to exceed five (5) percent of.~the gross site area. The commission shall consider the appropriateness of such area for the intended purpose, using the following guidelines: Slope in active recreation areas shall not exceed ten (10) percent. Slope and drainage shall be approved by the county engineer; e The size and shape of each recreation area shall be adequate for the intended use; Groundcover shall consist of turf grass or contained mulch such as pine bark, shredded tires, or pea gravel; Existing wooded or steep areas may qualify as passive recreation area provided no other suitable area is available on the site; Access shall be adequate for pedestrians and service vehicles if necessary; Location shall be compatible with adjoining uses, convenient to users and suitable for supervision. 4.16.2 - Minimum Facilities The following facilities shall be provided within the recreational area: 4.16.2.1 One (1) tot lot shall be provided for the first thirty (30) units and for each additional fifty (50) units and shall contain equipment which provides an amenity equivalent to: One (1) swing (four (4) seats) One (1) slide Two (2) climbers One (1) buckabout or whirl Two (2) benches. Substitutions of equipment or facilities may be approved by the direc- tor of planning and community development, provided they offer a recreational amenity equivalent to the facilities listed above, and are appropriate to the needs of the occupants. Each tot lot shall consist of at least two thousand (2,000) square feet and shall be fenced, where determined necessary by the director of planning and community development, to provide a safe environment for young children. 4.16.2.2 One-half (1/2) court for basketball shall be provided for each one hundred (100) units, consisting of a thirty (30) foot by thirty (30) foot area of four (4) inch 21-A base and one and one half (1 1/2) inches bituminous concrete surface, and a basketball backboard and net installed at regulation height. 4.16.3 - Additional Requirements 4.16.3.1 Equipment specifications shall be approved by the director of planning and community development on advice of the director of parks and recreation. 4.16.3.2 Recreational equipment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe condition and replaced as necessary. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner if rental units or a homeowners' association if sale units. 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the units have received certificates of occupancy. SECTION 15.0 - RESIDENTIALt R-4 15~7 - Recreational Area Requirements - Amend language to read: See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. 346 March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Paqe 13) SECTION 16.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-6 16.7 - Recreational Area Requirements - Amend language to read: See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. SECTION 17.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-10 17.7 - Recreational Area Requirements - Amend language to read: See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. SECTION 18.0 - RESIDENTIAL~ R-15 18.7 - Recreational Area Requirements - Amend language to read: See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. SECTION 19.0 - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ PRD 19.6.2 - Recreational Area Requirements - Amend language to read: See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. SECTION 20.0 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ PUD 20.8.3 - Recreational Area Requirements - Amend language to read: See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Horne handed out a memorandum dated March 3, 1986, to the Planning Commission, re: "Request for Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan". Mr. Horne said last August the County Engineer presented to the Board a series of proposals dealing with roadway networks he felt were needed to alleviate traffic problems in the county. One of the pro- posals dealt with an area between the SPCA Road and Route 29 North between Rio Road and the Hilton Hotel site. The sole access to the area is essentially Route 29 North. In addition, the staff considers this area to be the largest scale commercial developable area on Route 29 North and feels that no matter what is done to Route 29 North in terms of widening, in the long run it will be insufficient. There is a need for an alternate access to those commer- cial areas to be shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 4, 1986, adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to show three roadways. One roadway would start on the south of Rio Road directly across from Berkmar Drive and go north-south to connect to the Hilton Hotel site with two other associated roadways. Another roadway would connect to that roadway and go to the crossover at Woodbrook Subdivision. The other roadway would be a connection to go from the roadway to a slight realignment with crossover at the entrance of Carrsbrook Subdivision. In order to align these two roadways, the Carrsbrook crossover would have to be moved 100 feet to 200 feet north. The staff thinks this would provide an alternate access to these large scale commercial areas and provide some provisions for through traffic, traffic that would not normally be travelling Route 29 North. This proposal has been discussed with ~Mr. Tucker of the County Executive's office who has authorized the Engineering Department to hire a consulting engineer to design a feasible alignment for this roadway. After that, the staff will evaluate the actual impact of trying to put this road in. As long it can be constructed with no major physical problems, the staff feels that it could recommend to the Commission and Board for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Fisher asked how this road would serve the proposed major developments. Will the developments depend on the proposed road for access instead of Route 29? Mr. Horne said the proposed road is not intended to be a replacement for Route 29, but a supplement to Route 29. As development occurs, there is going to be increasing difficulty in matching either commer- cial entrances to crossovers or the design of entrances so that the County does not end up with this section of Route 29 North looking very similar to the southern section of Route 29. It would be a fairly substantial roadway to provide access from another direction into the commercial areas and would take some of the traffic off of Route 29 North. It can in no way solve the problem. The staff thinks that if the County does not start building some type of roadway network in this corridor, it will never get away from the traffic using one major arterial roadway. Mrs. Cooke asked if the properties fronting on Route 29 North go back as far as this proposed roadway. Mr. Horne said approximately, but this roadway moves back and forth. Mrs. Cooke asked what type of property lies on the other side of the roadway. Mr. Horne said most of the property on the other side of the proposed roadway is zoned residential, either R-6, R-4 or R-15. The roadway would act to a certain extent as an alternate to residential areas also. Mrs. Cooke asked if the residential lots back up to the developed areas or if it would open up the possibility of residential development along the road to the west. Mr. Horne said, in his opinion, it would be an asset to someone who is attempting to develop residen- tial growth in the area. It would be very difficult to market a high density residential development with access being from the SPCA road. It would tend to encourage a quicker development of some of the areas, but would provide the staff the ability to work with the March 5, 1986 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from February 19, 1986) (Pa~ design to get the access onto that roadway and not on the SPCA road. Mr. Horne said this is just information for the Board today. Mr. Way asked who will pay for construction of the proposed road. Mr. Horne said there are currently discussions with the County Attorney as to the ability to require developers to build portions as part of their site plans. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn. Mr. Agnor requested an executive session for discussion of personnel matters. Lindstrom requested an executive session for legal matters pertaining to asbestos. Mr. At 5:40 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session for the stated purposes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follOwing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M., and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 4:00 P.M.